Now comes the Conservative Jewish movement to reverse itself on issues of homosexuality. On Wednesday, their Committee on Jewish Law and Standards took formal action to allow for commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples. But more significantly, it determined that ordaining gay rabbis should be allowed.Meeting at an undisclosed site in Baltimore, the committee voted to lift the ban on permitting gay rabbis and same-sex unions. The Conservatives, who hold the middle ground between the progressive Reform tradition of Judaism and Orthodox Jews, have about 1,600 rabbis in its fold worldwide. According to the Associated Press, the vote upended thousands of years of precedent, but the adoption of three starkly conflicting policies made their actions anything but clear cut. The AP said four committee members abruptly resigned when they lost their effort to keep a ban on ordinations. Only six votes are required to validate a position.The ban on male sodomy was not changed. A third policy upholds the ban on gay sexual relationships in Jewish law and mentions the option for gays to undergo therapy at changing their sexual orientation, AP reported. As a result, Jewish seminaries and synagogues are left to determine what steps to take. Reform Jews and the Reconstructionist tradition of Judaism have moved to permit gay rabbis. Meanwhile, the Orthodox branch stands strongly opposed. AP said its not clear whether congregations, now part of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, would move to withdraw as result of Wednesdays vote. Reconstructionist Jews quickly issued a statement Wednesday to welcome the change in position among Conservatives. We applaud the CJLS for taking a step toward advancing the rights of gay and lesbian Jews, it said, adding that its own community can only be enriched by the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Jews.In 1984, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College became the first rabbinical seminary to accept openly gay and lesbian students, as well as first to endorse their ordination. Reform Judaism followed six years later. In 2004, Reconstructionists endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples.We continue to hope by our speaking out on such issues, we can encourage all religions of the world to put behind them discriminatory and hateful words and, instead, follow the road of peace and compassion, said the remarks endorsed by the top leaders of three arms of the Reconstructionist movement. In a New York Times report, Rabbi Joel Meyers, vice president of the Conservatives Rabbinical Assembly, stated that he feared that the vote might drive Conservative Jews to either the Reform or Orthodox branches. It was suggested that more than 20 years ago when women were starting to be ordained in Conservative Judaism, the most traditional members left the fold in opposition. However you read this faith group’s latest action, it is still a move toward greater acceptance of homosexuals and permitting them a fairer place in the human race.

Houses of worships, because they are so well distributed across residential neighborhoods and because they are largely empty on Tuesdays, are the most commonly used public election polls. Members of the American Humanist Association took notes on Nov. 7 and they found shocking evidence that religious proselytizing was being performed on unwitting voters. Houses of worships, because they are so well distributed across residential neighborhoods and because they are largely empty on Tuesdays, are the most commonly used public election polls. Members of the American Humanist Association took notes on Nov. 7 and they found shocking evidence that religious proselytizing was being performed on unwitting voters. We put out a call to our members whose polling places were churches, asking them to report what they say, said AHA President Mel Lipman. The response was shocking. While some churches covered over religious symbols out of respect for the principle of government neutrality on religion, many, many others were in-your-face, here-we-are, loving-Jesus-Christ space lenders. An Illinois member voted in a church that displayed a four-foot wood crucifix right above the election judges, reported James Hurley, attorney for the new Appignani Humanist Legal Center in Washington, D.C., which is touted as the first nontheistic legal center there. Voters in a California precinct beheld a large marble plaque dedicated to the unborn children who are killed by abortion. They were treated to a biblical quote justifying the notion that the soul is alive in the womb. In New York, voters at one precinct were treated to a batch of large religious slogans on the wall behind the voting machines.The Humanists report that what Jerry Rabinowitz confronted when he entered Emmanuel Catholic Church in Delray Beach, Fla., has prompted him to file a lawsuit. He claims that to get to the voting machines, first he had to walk past a church-sponsored pro-life banner framed by many giant crosses. In the voting area, he saw many religious symbols in full view both surrounding the election judges and in direct line above voting machines. One boldly says, Each of us matters to God. It can be seen at www.americanhumanist.org/images/votingbooth.jpg.The Appignani Humanist Legal Center spokesman says the center wants to make sure the First Amendment is not compromised when houses of worship have a captive audience for a time, people often having to wait in line and nothing to do but look around. The opportunities to advertise belief is all too tempting. Given that President Bush has been consistently naming conservative Christian judges who dont support the separation of church and state, intrusion on the protected right grows, said the associations executive director Roy Speckhardt. So it all begs the question: When churches are leased by election officials, what are church leaders told about readying the space? Certainly, temporary changes can be made in rooms to mute religious messages be that taking down posters, signs and artwork or covering things over. But its not beyond zealous church staff to capitalize on the opportunities for lots of strangers (ripe-for-the-harvest , vulnerable, unchurched or searching seekers) to get a good dose of what we are here for and what we are doing. Why waste the moment? they reason. A spiritual wanderers trip to the polls could turn into something special for the church — the lost is found! Or to quote Humphrey Bogart at the end of the classic film Casablanca: "Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Should Americas first Muslim U.S. congressman be permitted to put his hand on a Quran, rather than a Bible, as he takes his oath of office and is sworn into a seat in the House of Representatives? Look for a nasty debate if the Minnesotan doesnt cave in first. Of course, he should be allowed to do so if this countrys religious freedom means anything.The whole brewing controversy is just what Americans love. Syndicated columnist Dennis Prager has stirred the pot with a strongly worded commentary Friday declaring absurd as this sounds the act undermines American civilization. Prager contends Congressman-Elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., is committing an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism suggesting that he is saying that his culture is trumping Americas culture.Prager quickly diminishes his woeful argument when he states, What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book. His argument plummets still further with this cheap shot: Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellisons favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. Prager said no one should run for Congress if he or she isnt capable of being sworn in with a hand on a Bible.Now, there is no religious test to hold public office. An atheist should be able to be sworn in and respectfully decline to take the oath on a Bible. Historically, there have been various accommodations for those opting out of the Bible oath. And wouldnt there be a bit of hypocrisy by exacting on a Muslim to take the oath on a Bible. The oath calls for upholding the U.S. Constitution (free of sectarian references) and not the Bible. The vicious statements being made about this controversy include accusations that Ellison will give his allegiance to Mecca and not Washington. Using that line of thinking, Jewish office-holders would have their first loyalties to Israel. I could name a few politicians who gave their allegiance to their distorted brand of Christianity at the expense of Americas welfare.The fuss is just bogus. Its more of what some Americans are so good at best exemplified in their preoccupation with outlawing flag-burning cherishing symbols but trashing freedoms. Keith Ellison was elected fairly and squarely and if an inordinate number of Muslims voted for him and people from Islamic groups contributed to his campaign is that any different that the millions of Christians who intentionally supported candidates who wore their faith on their sleeves?. Researchers have found that Presidents Franklin Pierce and a Herbert Hoover, a Quaker, only affirmed their oaths and didnt swear with a Bible and hand. And across American democracy, there have been varied ways to be sworn in.We need to grow up and recognize America is only getting more diverse. Religious beliefs are only part of what we are. Clearly some of those upset that a congressman would choose the Quran are really bummed that a Muslim will now be helping to make American law. Gosh, a few generations back, folks were bummed that women . and blacks .. Indians and gays were allowed into the chambers of government to help shape our future. The day of the white, Christian, heterosexual male running things is changing. I could swear to that on a stack of Bibles.

I sometimes wonder why adherents of some religions hardly ever vocally react to events. Their ox must be gored enough to want to speak out with letters, e-mails, press conferences or whatever. Perhaps, its just self-restraint. Perhaps, its not being that sophisticated at getting any counter-message out. Maybe, there is wisdom in letting things blow over. Maybe its not having media-savvy spokesmen. Of course, choosing to not defend or react stems, as well, from deep-seated confidence it ones faith, its historic depth, its body of teaching that needs no defending. I see that best found in Catholicism, a monolith too dominant for any criticism to often make any difference or change policy. Anti-Catholicism has raged through history, for sure, but all in all, the churchs reach and impact have been unchained. Today, Christians and Jews generally are not shy at reacting to what offends them. Until recent years, Muslims in this country have not had the mechanisms and people to respond and react. That has been changing with such effective organizations as The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society. I think their raised voice comes as a surprise to part of our society unaccustomed to their speaking out and speaking up. CAIR, especially, has emerged as a defender in the tradition of the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith, certainly the most vigilant monitor and watchdog to be found for Judaism and the Israel. Their detractors say their swift and vociferous responses browbeat and repress free discussion.It takes no time on the Web to see that the ADL and CAIR have their vocal watchdogs, accusing them of extremism, inflexibility and blindness. Evangelical Christianity is not outdone with its stable of groups that prowl the news wires, blogosphere and TV/radio networks for events, public statements and slip-ups to put out a statement. Among them are the Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women of America, Moral Majority Coalition, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family and Scottsdales own Center for Arizona Policy and the Alliance Defense Fund.Many showed their stripes this week in a fierce debate over whether American Christendoms icon, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., had lost his mind for inviting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., to speak on Friday (Dec. 1) at the Global Summit on AIDS a at his church. Critics slammed the pastor for bringing in Obama, who is pro-choice on abortion and who has called for distribution of condoms as an effective way to reduce the spreading of HIV. After enduring a barrage of second-guessing from conservative Christians, Warren presented a forceful statement, noting that Christ spent a third of his ministry helping the sick and caring for peoples bodies and that Obamas remarks should be heard. He underscored that he did not endorse all conference speakers nor what they would be saying. Twenty-five mainstream Christian leaders criticized the critics by saying the AIDS epidemic is too desperate for petty litmus tests on speakers political credentials. The lively activity of electronic press releases on this issue alone demonstrates how fast interest groups are mobilized to instantly react, counter others statements and keep stormy discussions going for days. The day may come when our own Valley congregations begin to engage back and forth through the Internet on matters that rock their boats. But even then, there will be plenty of faiths that will be oblivious and disengaged even if it really affected them or should offend them.